Pages

Thursday, February 5, 2015

Slow Death, Fast Profits: Pesticides and Chemical Conflicts in Europe

A report released last year by the watchdog body Corporate
Europe Observatory (CEO) revealed huge conflicts of interests in the
Scientific Committees under DG SANCO, the European Commission’s
department in charge of consumer issues (see here ’Chemical Conflicts’).

These Committees assess the risk to humans and the environment of
chemicals found in a huge range of everyday items, from shampoo to baby
bottles. Their opinions guide European Commission regulators, who decide
which chemicals are safe and at what levels and which should be banned.

The research found that two thirds of scientists had at least one,
and some many more, conflicts of interest due to their links to
industries impacted by assessments. The research focused on assessment
procedures involving the Scientific Committees with regard to four
substances, including endocrine disrupting parabens and DNA-damaging
titanium dioxide – in nano-form. All of the substances are already
widely available on the market.

Having gone through the annual declarations of the interests of all
57 members involved in the Scientific Committees’ opinions on the four
substances examined (parabens, nano titanium-dioxide, nano silver, and
mercury dental amalgams), 67 percent of the scientists were found to
have links with industries with a direct or indirect interest in the
assessed chemicals. The research exposed links to pharmaceutical giant
GlaxoSmithKline, chemical behemoth DuPont and consumer goods heavyweight
Unilever.

CEO found that the most common conflict was working in a consultative
or advisory role for industry. This means direct payment to the expert –
or in some cases their research institution – for services to those
companies whose products were regulated following the Scientific
Committee opinions.

The implications of these types of conflicts of interests (and
corporate lobbying) are laid bare by Arthur Nelson. Writing in the
British newspaper The Guardian (2nd February 2015), he notes
that as many as 31 pesticides with a value running into billions of
pounds could have been banned in the EU because of potential health
risks, if a blocked EU paper on hormone-mimicking chemicals had been
acted upon (read Nelson’s piece here).

The science paper that has been seen by The Guardian recommends ways
of identifying and categorising the endocrine-disrupting chemicals
(EDCs) that scientists link to a rise in foetal abnormalities, genital
mutations, infertility and adverse health effects ranging from cancer to
IQ loss.

Nelson writes that Commission sources say that the paper was buried
by top EU officials under pressure from big chemical firms which use
EDCs in toiletries, plastics and cosmetics, despite an annual health
cost that studies peg at hundreds of millions of euros.

The paper’s proposed criteria for categorisations of EDCs was
supposed to have enabled EU bans of hazardous substances to take place
last year. According to The Guardian, Commission officials say that
under pressure from major chemical industry players (acting via SANCO),
such as Bayer and BASF, the criteria were blocked. In their place, less
stringent options emerged, along with a plan for an impact assessment
that is not expected to be finalised until 2016.

“If the draft ‘cut-off’ criteria proposed by the
commission had been applied correctly, 31 pesticides would have been
banned by now, fulfilling the mandate of the pesticide regulation to
protect humans and the environment from low-level chronic endocrine
disrupting pesticide exposure.”

The fear is that, as a result of industry pressure, any legislation
or regulations will be watered down. A PAN study estimates that under
the roadmap options currently being considered, no more than seven – and
as few as zero – pesticides would ever be withdrawn.

According to The Guardian, Lisette van Vliet, a senior policy adviser
to the Health and Environment Alliance, blamed pressure from the UK and
German ministries and industry for delaying public protection from
chronic diseases and environmental damage:

“This is really about whether we in the EU honestly and
openly use the best science for identifying EDCs, or whether the
interests of certain industries and two ministries or agencies from two
countries manage to sway the outcome to the detriment of protecting
public health and the environment.”

Ordinary Europeans want officials to uphold the public interest and
be independent from commercial influence. They do not want them to serve
and profit from commercial interests at cost to the public’s health and
safety. However, what they too often get is massive conflicts of
interest throughout the EU (see here the ‘revolving door’ and here ’the EFSA’s independence problem’) and a European Commission that is beholden to massive corporate lobbying [see here ’the fire power of the financial lobby’ and here ’who lobbies most’).

Regulators turn a blind eye to the deleterious effects of products that pose a serious systemic risk to the public [see here ’the glyphosate toxicity studies you’re not allowed to see’ and here‘case
closed by EFSA on Roundup, despite new evidence’) and also give the nod
to products based not on independent research but a company’s
statements or secretive studies taken at face value and
then deliberately keep the public in the dark [see here ’Roundup and birth defects’).

Unfortunately, what Europeans have is a European Commission that serves a corporate agenda (see here ’the black book on the corporate agenda of the EC’).

Intellectual Center Reviews

Intellectual Center provides Independent News in blog format to assist other activists, teachers, and elders with alternative news, information on social issues, and research material.

FAIR USE NOTICE: Intellectual Center (Website) may post copyrighted material not specifically authorized in accordance with Section 107 of U.S. Copyright Law allowing purposes associating learning processes. Please be advised if you intend to use such copyrighted material for personal reasons beyond "fair use," considerations, please obtain permission from the copyright owner. Learning processes encompass a vast array of issues of concern and would not be restrictive, it would offer critique and extended scholarly research.

Website may display third party authors/advertising which may not represent the views or opinions of Website or contributors. Advertisements are not endorsed as such and are intended as alternative ways to support the work at Website.